Importance of coproducts

DDGS from most modern U. S. fuel ethanol plants typically contains about 30% protein, 10% fat, at least 40% neutral detergent fiber, and up to 12% starch (Rosentrater and Muthukumarappan, 2006). Composition, however, can vary between plants and even within a single plant over time, due to a number of factors. For example, Table 1 summarizes composition of DDGS samples collected from five ethanol plants in South Dakota. On a dry basis, crude protein levels ranged from 28.3 to 31.8%; crude lipid varied between 9.4 and 11.0%; ash ranged from 4.1 to 13.3%. In terms of within-plant variability, the crude protein, crude lipid, and starch content all exhibited relatively low variation, whereas neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and ash all had substantially higher variability.

Plant

Protein

Lipid

NDF

ADF

Starch

Ash

1

28.33b (1.25)

10.76a (1.00)

31.84b (4.02)

15.56a (2.29)

11.82a (1.20)

13.27a (3.10)

2

30.65= (1.20)

9.75a (1.05)

39.90a (3.95)

15.21a (3.95)

9.81a (1.52)

12.84a (2.56)

3

28.70= (1.32)

10.98a (0.95)

38.46a (4.01)

17.89a (4.01)

11.59a (1.42)

11.52a (3.05)

4

30.65a (1.23)

9.40b

(0.16)

36.73a (1.07)

15.28a (0.49)

9.05b (0.33)

4.13b (0.21)

5

31.78a (0.63)

9.50b (0.41)

38.88a (0.86)

17.24a (1.12)

10.05a (0.65)

4.48b (0.22)

Table 1. Composition (% db) of DDGS from five ethanol plants in South Dakota (± 1 standard deviation in parentheses). Statistically significant differences among plants for a given nutrient are denoted by differing letters, a=0.05, LSD (adapted from Bhadra et al., 2009).

Furthermore, DDGS from 49 plants from 12 states were analyzed for proximate composition (Table 2) and amino acid profiles (Table 3) (UMN, 2011). Dry matter content varied from 86.2% to 92.4%, while protein varied from 27.3% to 33%. Crude fat content displayed even higher variability, and ranged from 3.5% to 13.5%; crude fiber ranged from 5.37% to 10.58%; and ash content varied from 2.97% to 9.84%. On average, geographic trends were not readily apparent for any of the nutrient components. In terms of amino acids, lysine ranged from 0.61% to 1.19%, but again, no geographic trends were apparent.

Some plants are beginning to implement various fractionation processes (either pre­fermentation or post-fermentation) in order to produce multiple product streams (RFA, 2009a). These new processes can lead to additional differences in DDGS nutrient levels. For example, various techniques for dry fractionation and wet fractionation have been developed to concentrate protein, fiber, and oil components from the endosperm (which contains the starch). This allows a highly-concentrated starch substrate to be introduced to the fermentation process, and it allows the other components to be used for human food applications. Singh and Johnston (2009) have provided an extensive discussion regarding various pre-fermentation fractionation approaches. On the other hand, post-fermentation fractionation techniques have also been examined. For example, Srinivasan et al. (2005) used a combination of (air classification and sieving to separate fiber particles from DDGS. Processes have also been developed to remove corn oil from thin stillage and CDS; although the resulting corn oil fractions cannot be used as food-grade oil, they can readily be converted into biodiesel. All of these approaches, if implemented commercially, will alter the composition of the resulting DDGS.

State Plants Sampled

Dry Matter (%)

Crude Protein (%)

Crude Fat (%)

Crude Fiber (%) Ash (%)

Minnesota

12

89.03

30.70

11.73

6.96

6.63

Illinois

6

89.72

29.98

11.48

7.26

5.60

Indiana

2

90.55

29.40

12.80

8.07

5.86

Iowa

7

88.92

31.23

10.27

7.57

5.76

Kentucky

3

90.57

29.43

9.77

9.28

4.47

Michigan

1

89.60

32.60

11.00

7.37

6.06

Missouri

2

87.90

30.45

10.25

7.17

5.39

Nebraska

4

89.02

30.40

11.35

8.13

4.23

New York

1

88.21

30.00

9.60

7.87

4.55

North Dakota

4

89.21

31.75

11.70

6.89

6.32

South Dakota

4

88.61

31.80

11.53

6.65

4.78

Wisconsin

3

89.68

31.70

11.63

7.59

5.77

Overall Average

49 (Total)

89.25

30.79

11.09

7.57

5.45

Table 2. Composition (% db) of DDGS samples from 49 ethanol plants from 12 states (adapted from UMN, 2011).

State

Plants Sampled

Agrinine (%)

Histidine (%)

Isoleucine (%)

Leucine (%)

Lysine (%)

Methionine (%)

Minnesota

12

1.39

0.84

1.20

3.63

0.99

0.61

Illinois

6

1.37

0.82

1.15

3.45

0.94

0.63

Indiana

2

1.19

0.79

1.08

3.28

0.85

0.60

Iowa

7

1.34

0.86

1.20

3.63

0.95

0.61

Kentucky

3

1.35

0.79

1.09

3.33

0.89

0.66

Michigan

1

1.28

0.86

1.18

3.67

0.87

0.71

Missouri

2

1.35

0.83

1.18

3.68

0.89

0.73

N ebraska

4

1.46

0.88

1.18

3.61

1.05

0.65

N ew York

1

1.46

0.85

1.21

3.64

1.04

0.61

N orth Dakota

4

1.37

0.88

1.24

3.76

0.97

0.65

South Dakota

4

1.47

0.87

1.22

3.70

1.08

0.62

Wisconsin

3

1.45

0.86

1.24

3.75

1.07

0.59

Overall Average

49

1.37

0.84

1.18

3.59

0.96

0.64

State

Plants Sampled

Phenylalanine (%)

Threonine (%)

Tryptophan (%)

Valine (%)

Tyrosine (%)

Minnesota

12

1.59

1.17

0.24

1.62

1.20

Illinois

6

1.51

1.11

0.22

1.52

1.22

Indiana

2

1.45

1.04

0.21

1.44

Iowa

7

1.57

1.14

0.25

1.60

Kentucky

3

1.48

1.09

0.26

1.43

Michigan

1

1.52

1.15

0.25

1.57

Missouri

2

1.53

1.15

0.24

1.58

Nebraska

4

1.58

1.15

0.26

1.58

1.14

New York

1

1.63

1.11

0.20

1.59

1.19

N orth Dakota

4

1.62

1.19

0.25

1.67

South Dakota

4

1.67

1.19

0.23

1.63

1.35

Wisconsin

3

1.65

1.14

0.22

1.64

1.25

Overall Average

49

1.56

1.13

0.24

1.57

1.22

Table 3. Amino acid profiles (% db) of DDGS samples from 49 ethanol plants from 12 states (adapted from UMN, 2011).

The U. S. ethanol industry’s primary market for distillers grains has historically been as a commodity livestock feed. Most often this has been in the form of DDGS, and to a lesser degree in the form of DWG; the other coproducts are sold in much lower quantities than either DDGS or DWG and some are not always produced either). Feeding ethanol coproducts to animals is a practical method of utilizing these materials because they contain high nutrient levels, and they are digestible (to varying degrees) by most livestock. And, use of DDGS in animal feeds (instead of corn grain) helps to offset the corn which has been

redirected to ethanol production. Over 80% of all distillers grains is used in beef and dairy diets; due to their ability to utilize high levels of fiber, ruminant animals have become the dominant consumers of DDGS. But, as livestock producers and animal nutritionists increase their knowledge, through research and experience, the swine and poultry markets are also increasing their consumption as well (UMN, 2011). Over the years, numerous research studies have been conducted on coproduct use in livestock diets, for both ruminant and monogastric feeds. Table 4 lists some of this research. Depending on the diet composition used, all livestock species have been shown to thrive at 10% DDGS inclusion, and most can tolerate levels up to 20% (or even more).

Species Citation

Species

Citation

Beef

Dairy

Loy et al., 2007

Kleinschmit et al., 2007

MacDonald et al., 2007

Anderson et al., 2006

Martin et al., 2007

Kleinschmit et al., 2006

Roeber et al., 2005

Leonardi et al., 2005

Al-Suwaiegh et al., 2002

Birkelo et al., 2004

Peter et al., 2000

McKendrick et al., 2003

Lodge et al., 1997a

Al-Suwaiegh et al., 2002

Lodge et al., 1997b

Liu et al., 2000

Fron et al., 1996

Huang et al., 1999

Klopfenstein, 1996

Schingoethe et al., 1999

Ham et al., 1994

Batajoo and Shaver, 1998

Larson et al., 1993

Nichols et al., 1998

Donaldson et al., 1991

Clark and Armentano, 1997

McCann et al., 1991

DePeters et al., 1997 O’Mara et al., 1997 Zhu et al., 1997 Arosemena et al., 1995 Murphy et al., 1995 Powers et al., 1995 Ham et al., 1994 Clark and Armentano, 1993

Swine

Poultry

Stein and Shurson, 2009

Waldroup et al., 2007

Pedersen et al., 2007

Wang et al., 2007a

Widmer et al., 2007

Wang et al., 2007b

Fastinger et al., 2007

Wang et al., 2007c

Stein et al., 2006

Batal and Dale, 2006

Whitney et al., 2006a

Fastinger et al., 2006

Whitney et al., 2006b

Martinez-Amezcua et al., 2006

Whitney et al., 2006c

Noll, 2006

Whitney et al., 2006d

Lumpkins and Batal, 2005

Nyachoti et al., 2005

Lumpkins et al., 2005

Whitney and Shurson, 2004

Roberson et al., 2005

Gralapp et al., 2002

Biggs et al., 2004

Spiehs et al., 2002

Lumpkins et al., 2004

Nicolai et al., 1999

Martinez Amezcua et al., 2004

Cromwell et al., 1993

Batal and Dale, 2003 Roberson, 2003 Cromwell et al., 1993

Table 4. Summary of livestock research on fuel ethanol coproducts.

DDGS use in livestock diets has continued to increase over the years. Predictions of peak potential for DDGS use in domestic U. S. beef, dairy, swine, and poultry markets have estimated that between 40 and 60 million t could be used in the U. S. each year, depending upon inclusion rates for each species (Staff, 2005; Cooper, 2006; U. S. Grains Council, 2007). Globally, the need for protein-based animal feeds continues to grow. Of the 23 million t of DDGS produced in 2008 (RFA, 2009b), 4.5 million t were exported to international markets (FAS, 2009); this accounted for nearly 20% of the U. S. DDGS production that year (Figure 6). And the potential for global exports is projected to increase for the foreseeable future (U. S. Grains Council, 2007).

Подпись:Подпись: 60Подпись: 50Подпись:Подпись: 30 ^Подпись: 20Подпись:Подпись: 0image47О

n

Подпись: Year Country Fig. 6. A. U.S. DDGS exports in 2008. B. Countries who imported DDGS in 2008 (adapted from Hoffman and Baker, 2010).

n

image49

Not only are coproducts important to the livestock industry as feed ingredients, but they are also essential to the sustainability of the fuel ethanol industry itself. In fact, the sale of distillers grains (all types — dry and wet) contributes substantially to the economic viability of each ethanol plant (sales can generally contribute between 10 and 20% of a plant’s total revenue stream (Figure 7), but at times it can be as high as 40%), depending upon the market conditions for corn, ethanol, and distillers grains. This is the reason why these process residues are referred to as "coproducts", instead of "byproducts" or "waste products"; they truly are products in their own right along with the fuel.

image52

So the sales price of DDGS is important to ethanol manufacturers and livestock producers alike. Over the last three decades, the price for DDGS has ranged from approximately $50.71/1 up to $209.44/1 (Figure 8). DDGS and corn prices have historically paralleled each other very closely (Figure 9). This relationship has been quite strong over the last several

years. This is not surprising, as DDGS is most often used to replace corn in livestock diet formulations. DDGS has increasingly been used as a replacement for soybean meal as well, primarily as a source of protein. Even so, DDGS has historically been sold at a discounted price vis-a-vis both corn and soybean meal. This has been true on a volumetric unit basis, as well as per unit protein basis (Figure 9).